[ih] When did "32" bits for IP register as "not enough"?

[Vint Cerf]

well actually, the procurement side did stop supporting acquisition of TCP.
NSF picked up the ball in 1982.
It really wasn't until about 1993 that the USG gave up on OSI. Think about
GOSIP for example.

v


On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 9:54 PM Richard Bennett <richard at bennett.com> wrote:

> They issued a statement to that effect, yes. But I don’t think they
> actually stopped supporting TCP.
>
> Anyhow, ISO/OSI wasn’t even implementable without the OSI Implementors’
> Workshop agreements on subsetting the myriad options.
>
> RB
>
> On Feb 18, 2019, at 7:45 PM, Vint Cerf <vint at google.com> wrote:
>
> not so richard. By 1983, DOD had officially endorsed OSI.
>
> v
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 9:02 PM Richard Bennett <richard at bennett.com>
> wrote:
>
>> ISO/OSI was backed by the Commerce Department, but TCP was the darling of
>> the Defense Department.
>>
>> RB
>>
>> On Feb 18, 2019, at 5:26 PM, Scott O. Bradner <sob at sobco.com> wrote:
>>
>> agree - it did not get much - even with Marshall’s book behind it - maybe
>> big companies were not comfortable in betting their
>> future on small-company code - but that is just a guess
>>
>> one thing different about what Dennis was trying to do - he would have
>> had a government-blessed implementation
>> which would allow the governments that were pushing OSI (like the US)
>> something to point at to justify their
>> regulations
>>
>> Scott
>>
>>
>> On Feb 18, 2019, at 7:07 PM, Clem cole <clemc at ccc.com> wrote:
>>
>> Scott    Point taken but what about Marshall Rose’s ISODE:
>> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_Development_Environment
>>
>> It was available but never got any traction as far as I can tell.
>>
>> Clem
>>
>> Sent from my PDP-7 Running UNIX V0 expect things to be almost but not
>> quite.
>>
>> On Feb 18, 2019, at 6:26 PM, Scott O. Bradner <sob at sobco.com> wrote:
>>
>> Dennis Jennings tells a story relating to this topic - he said that he
>> was involved in an effort to get a set of OSI code
>> produced & released along the same line as the Berkeley TCP/IP code but
>> at the very last minute the vendor that
>> was going to provide the code, one that sold OSI code to vendors, backed
>> out because they thought it would
>> be bad for their business model - the discussion might have been
>> different if Dennis had succeeded, instead
>> that vendor’s business died along with the OSI protocols
>>
>> Scott
>>
>> On Feb 18, 2019, at 5:06 PM, Dave Crocker <dhc at dcrocker.net> wrote:
>>
>> On February 18, 2019 11:42:12 AM PST, Clem Cole <clemc at ccc.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 5:58 PM Brian E Carpenter <
>> brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote:
>> They, like many other companies, had been told by many officials
>> in the USA and Europe (and a bit later in Asia) that OSI would be
>> a government procurement requirement. That triggered a lot of
>> investment in product development.
>>
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Open_Systems_Interconnection_Profile
>>
>> Plus large manufacturing firms such as GM and Boeing were drinking the
>> coolaid with their MAP/TOP push
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Automation_Protocol which
>> was OSI based (plus those folks did not believe in Ethernet - they were
>> sure it would not work on a manufacturing floor).
>>
>> But as I said, economics won out.     The HW they promoted was just too
>> expensive and the SW never really matured.   As others pointed out, the
>> cost of an OSI implementation was huge.    Even teleco standards like X.25
>> ended up not being worth it.  Just not enough people bought them to make it
>> so it was worth it.
>>
>> In the end, MAP/GOSIP et al went away - because why would you guy
>> something that cost more and in the end, did less?
>> ᐧ
>>
>> I suggest that what won out was usability in the large and in the small.
>> The Internet supplied an actual and large installed base of connected
>> users. OSI really never did. And the Iinternet tools were useul and
>> reasonably easy to use. The OSI tools were not.
>> --
>> Dave Crocker
>> bbiw.net
>>
>> via phone
>> _______
>> internet-history mailing list
>> internet-history at postel.org
>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance.
>>
>>
>>
>> _______
>> internet-history mailing list
>> internet-history at postel.org
>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance.
>>
>>
>>
>> _______
>> internet-history mailing list
>> internet-history at postel.org
>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance.
>>
>>
>> —
>> Richard Bennett
>> High Tech Forum <http://hightechforum.org/> Founder
>> Ethernet & Wi-Fi standards co-creator
>>
>> Internet Policy Consultant
>>
>> _______
>> internet-history mailing list
>> internet-history at postel.org
>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance.
>>
>
>
> --
> New postal address:
> Google
> 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor
> Reston, VA 20190
>
>
> —
> Richard Bennett
> High Tech Forum <http://hightechforum.org> Founder
> Ethernet & Wi-Fi standards co-creator
>
> Internet Policy Consultant
>
>

-- 
New postal address:
Google
1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor
Reston, VA 20190
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20190218/70c3055d/attachment.htm>